DEBATING MERITS OF DEMOCRACY

DEBATING MERITS OF DEMOCRACY

An argument broke out in Madam Lyngdoh’s class. She had finished teaching the previous section on what is democracy and asked the students if they thought democracy was the best form of government. Everyone had something to say.

Yolanda: We live in a democratic country. All over the world people want democracy. Countries that were not democratic earlier are becoming democratic now. All great people have said nice things about democracy. Isn’t it obvious that democracy is the best? Do we need to debate this?

Tangkini: But Lyngdoh Madam had said we should not accept something just because it is famous, just because everyone else accepts it. Isn’t it possible that everyone is following the wrong path?

Jeni: Yes, it actually is the wrong path. What has democracy brought to our country? Seven decades of democracy and there is so much poverty in the country.

Ribiang: But what has democracy got to do with it? Do we have poverty because we are democratic or do we have poverty despite being a democracy?

Jeni: Whatever, how does it make a difference? The point is that this can’t be the best form of government. Democracy is all about chaos, instability, corruption, and hypocrisy. Politicians fight among themselves. Who cares for the country?

Poimon: So, what should we have instead? Go back to the British rule? Invite some kings to rule this country?

Rose: I don’t know. I think what this country needs is a strong leader, someone who does not have to bother about elections and parliament. One leader should have all the powers. He should be able to do whatever is needed in the country’s interest. That alone can remove corruption and poverty from this country.

Someone shouted: That is called dictatorship!

Hoi: What if that person starts using all these powers for himself and his family? What if he is corrupt himself?

Rose: I am speaking only of an honest, sincere, and strong leader.

Hoi: But that is not fair. You are comparing a real democracy with an ideal dictatorship. We should compare an ideal with an ideal, the real with the real. Go and check the record of dictators in real life. They are most corrupt, self- ish, and brutal. It is just that we don’t get to know about this. And what is worse, you can’t even get rid of them.

Madam Lyngdoh was listening to this discussion with interest. Now she stepped in: “I was delighted to see you all arguing so passionately. I don’t know who is right and who is wrong. That is for you to settle. But I did feel that you all wanted to speak your mind. You may have felt very bad if someone tried to stop you or if someone punished you for saying what you felt. Would you be able to do that in a country that is not democratic? Is that a good argument for democracy?”

Source: This topic is taken from NCERT TEXTBOOK

ARGUMENTS AGAINST DEMOCRACY

ARGUMENTS AGAINST DEMOCRACY

This conversation has most of the arguments that we routinely hear against democracy. Let us go over some of these arguments:

*    Leaders keep changing in a democracy. This leads to instability.

*    Democracy is all about political competition and power play. There is no scope for morality.

*    So many people have to be consulted in a democracy that it leads to delays.

*    Elected leaders do not know the best interest of the people. It leads to bad decisions.

*    Democracy leads to corruption for it is based on electoral competition.

*    Ordinary people don’t know what is good for them; they should not decide anything

Are there some other arguments against democracy that you can think of? Which of these arguments applies mainly to democracy? Which of these can apply to misuse of any form of government? Which of these do you agree with?

Clearly, democracy is not a magical solution for all the problems. It has not ended poverty in our country and in other parts of the world. Democracy as a form of government only ensures that people take their own decisions. This does not guarantee that their decisions will be good. People can make mistakes. Involving the people in these decisions does lead to delays in decision-making. It is also true that democracy leads to frequent changes in leadership. Sometimes this can set back big decisions and affect the government’s efficiency.

These arguments show that democracy of the kind we see may not be the ideal form of government. But that is not a question we face in real life. The real question we face is different: is democracy better than other forms of government that are there for us to choose from?

Source: This topic is taken from NCERT TEXTBOOK

ARGUMENTS FOR DEMOCRACY

ARGUMENTS FOR DEMOCRACY

China’s famine of 1958-1961 was the worst recorded famine in world history. Nearly three crore people died in this famine. During those days, India’s economic condition was not much better than China's. Yet India did not have a famine of the kind China had. Economists think that this was a result of different government policies in the two countries. The existence of democracy in India made the Indian government respond to food scarcity in a way that the Chinese government did not. They point out that no large-scale famine has ever taken place in an independent and democratic country. If China too had multiparty elections, an opposition party, and a press free to criticize the government, then so many people may not have died in the famine.

This example brings out one of the reasons why democracy is considered the best form of government. Democracy is better than any other form of government in responding to the needs of the people. A non-democratic government may and can respond to the people’s needs, but it all depends on the wishes of the people who rule. If the rulers don’t want to, they don’t have to act according to the wishes of the people. A democracy requires that the rulers have to attend to the needs of the people. A democratic government is a better government because it is a more accountable form of government.

There is another reason why democracy should lead to better decisions than any non-democratic government. Democracy is based on consultation and discussion. A democratic decision always involves many persons, discussions and meetings. When a number of people put their heads together, they are able to point out possible mistakes in any decision. This takes time. But there is a big advantage in taking time over important decisions. This reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions. Thus democracy improves the quality of decision-making.

This is related to the third argument. Democracy provides a method to deal with differences and conflicts. In any society, people are bound to have differences of opinions and interests. These differences are particularly sharp in a country like ours which has an amazing social diversity. People belong to different regions, speak different languages, practise different religions, and have different castes. They look at the world very differently and have different preferences. The preferences of one group can clash with those of other groups. How do we resolve such a conflict? The conflict can be solved by brutal power. Whichever group is more powerful will dictate its terms and others will have to accept that. But that would lead to resentment and unhappiness. Different groups may not be able to live together for long in such away. Democracy provides the only peaceful solution to this problem. In a democracy, no one is a permanent winner. No one is a permanent loser. Different groups can live with one another peacefully. In a diverse country like India, democracy keeps our country together.

These three arguments were about the effects of democracy on the quality of government and social life. But the strongest argument for democracy is not about what democracy does to the government. It is about what democracy does to the citizens. Even if democracy does not bring about better decisions and accountable government, it is still better than other forms of government. Democracy enhances the dignity of citizens. As we discussed above, democracy is based on the principle of political equality, on recognising that the poorest and the least educated has the same status as the rich and the educated. People are not subjects of a ruler, they are the rulers themselves. Even when they make mistakes, they are responsible for their conduct.

Finally, democracy is better than other forms of government because it allows us to correct its own mistakes. As we saw above, there is no guarantee that mistakes cannot be made in democracy. No form of government can guarantee that. The advantage in a democracy is that such mistakes cannot be hidden for long. There is a space for public discussion on these mistakes. And there is a room for correction. Either the rulers have to change their decisions, or the rulers can be changed. This cannot happen in a non-democratic government.

Let us sum it up. Democracy cannot get us everything and is not the solution to all problems. But it is clearly better than any other alternative that we know. It offers better chances of a good decision, it is likely to respect people’s own wishes and allows different kinds of people to live together. Even when it fails to do some of these things, it allows a way of correcting its mistakes and offers more dignity to all citizens. That is why democracy is considered the best form of government.

This cartoon was published in Canada just before its parliamentary elections of 2004. Everyone, including the cartoonist, expected the Liberal party to win once again. When the results came, the Liberal Party lost the elections.

Activity:

*  Is this cartoon an argument against democracy or for democracy?

*  Rajesh and Muzaffar read an article. It showed that no democracy has ever gone to war with another democracy. Wars take place only when one of the two governments is non-democratic. The article said that this was a great merit of democracy. After reading the essay, Rajesh and Muzaffar had different reactions. Rajesh said that this was not a good argument for democracy. It was just a matter of chance. It is possible that in the future democracies may have wars. Muzaffar said that it could not be a matter of chance. Democracies take decisions in such a way that it reduces the chances of war. Which of the two positions do you agree with and why?

Source: This topic is taken from NCERT TEXTBOOK